If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm not quite sure how applicable your history lesson on slavery is to a two page article on Lincoln's war-time excess. It seems to me like you're saying that slavery was so bad that the ends justified the means.

Given your non-stop angst over Bush waterboarding THREE terrorists and denying habeas corpus to TWO US citizens in response to 3,000 Americans being killed, I just figured you'd be all beside yourself in regards to Lincoln's conduct of the Civil War. Is your perspective machine on the fritz?

The decision to go to war was not one-sided. However, some fights need to be fought and that one was probably essential. One of the many precipitating events for the war was the sourthern state insistence that slavery rights be extended to newly opened territories because of their fear that more states would be added that did not possess slaves, making those states with slaves more and more isolated politically.

My comments on the DiLorenzo story are based on the fact that he is anything but a dispassionate historian. He is a CFA propagandist in many respects and his history of Lincoln is a one-sided hatchet job.

The history books would have you believe he emancipated the slaves because he thought it right.

The fact is, he needed the blacks to fight the war.

and if you google Licoln's speeches, you will find excerpts like, 'although black men should be free, they should never be allowed to vote, or own property. They are not equals to white men.'

Or they 'should not be allowed to interracilly coexist or marry.'

there's a lot of it that proves he only did what was necessary to win the war, and having the black fighters, fighting to be free men, well, they can help tip the scales for sure.

he used the 'n' word in his writings regularly. And even in a formal letter to the President of Haiti used it about one of Haiti's ambassadors. When asked if Lincoln would require a white ambassador from Haiti, he said 'no, you may send a n..'

My comments on the DiLorenzo story are based on the fact that he is anything but a dispassionate historian. He is a CFA propagandist in many respects and his history of Lincoln is a one-sided hatchet job.

So Lincoln did not shell civilians which was illegal at the time, suspend habeas corpus, close newspapers which didn't agree with him, and even lock up politicians(northern) who disagreed? Northern states did not convene in 1814 and 1832 to decide on secession? And Jefferson did not say "In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."? Please point out where Dr. Dilorenzo has lied.

I guess since nearly a 3/4 of a million casualties to free 4 million slaves was "essential" and worth it, 30,000 US casualties in Iraq to free 24 million people was a bargain

So Lincoln did not shell civilians which was illegal at the time, suspend habeas corpus, close newspapers which didn't agree with him, and even lock up politicians(northern) who disagreed? Northern states did not convene in 1814 and 1832 to decide on secession? And Jefferson did not say "In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."? Please point out where Dr. Dilorenzo has lied.

I guess since nearly a 3/4 of a million casualties to free 4 million slaves was "essential" and worth it, 30,000 US casualties in Iraq to free 24 million people was a bargain

........

Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
Corey Burke

So Lincoln did not shell civilians which was illegal at the time, suspend habeas corpus, close newspapers which didn't agree with him, and even lock up politicians(northern) who disagreed? Northern states did not convene in 1814 and 1832 to decide on secession? And Jefferson did not say "In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."? Please point out where Dr. Dilorenzo has lied.

I guess since nearly a 3/4 of a million casualties to free 4 million slaves was "essential" and worth it, 30,000 US casualties in Iraq to free 24 million people was a bargain

The debate over whether the southern states seceded 'legally' was settled pretty firmly at Appomattox.

As for the feeble attempt to equate Dubya's invasion of Iraq with Lincoln's preservation of the Union -- that is one of the most idiotic things I've seen posted around here yet. And that is a high bar.

If this is what passes for an intelligent thought in the Republican party, then that pretty much explains up why the party is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The debate over whether the southern states seceded 'legally' was settled pretty firmly at Appomattox.

As for the feeble attempt to equate Dubya's invasion of Iraq with Lincoln's preservation of the Union -- that is one of the most idiotic things I've seen posted around here yet. And that is a high bar.

If this is what passes for an intelligent thought in the Republican party, then that pretty much explains up why the party is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Unfortunatly the south did not have Appomattox as precedent. Seceding was discussed openly and freely as an option by northern states prior to the Civil War and were never threatened. If you joined willingly and freely why could you not get out willingly and freely. Or was this the mafia they had joined.

If freeing 4 million with a quarter million casualties was worth it, freeing 24 million with 30,000 casualties is a bargain by comparison.

Unfortunatly the south did not have Appomattox as precedent. Seceding was discussed openly and freely as an option by northern states prior to the Civil War and were never threatened. If you joined willingly and freely why could you not get out willingly and freely. Or was this the mafia they had joined.

If freeing 4 million with a quarter million casualties was worth it, freeing 24 million with 30,000 casualties is a bargain by comparison.

1) The South may not have had 'Appomattox as a precedent'. But, we have it as a precedent now. So, to argue that secession is 'legal' is patently absurd.

2) I wasn't aware that there were 24 Million people in Iraq who were owned as property (forced into hard labor, children taken from their mothers and sold to the highest bidder, etc). It is a false moral equivalency, and patently absurd.

The debate over whether the southern states seceded 'legally' was settled pretty firmly at Appomattox.

As for the feeble attempt to equate Dubya's invasion of Iraq with Lincoln's preservation of the Union -- that is one of the most idiotic things I've seen posted around here yet. And that is a high bar.

If this is what passes for an intelligent thought in the Republican party, then that pretty much explains up why the party is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Defeat at Appomattox proves nothing as to the legality of the South's secession.

Who are you to judge idiocy, what is your name, occupation and merit.
You are but one person typing the thoughts of others from whom you have developed your political leanings, while hiding behind an anonymous handle and a keyboard.
Obviously you have learned the rules of engagement of the left, Demean and/or talk over the person who holds other views other than your own.